DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 28-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/3/2026. While Applicant amends claim 28 to depend from claim 1, the invention according to claims 28-31 is still a patentably distinct method from the claimed printing system. The Requirement is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, it is not known exactly what the 2 degree angle claimed is intended to mean. It would seem any lifter would directly contact any container at 0 degrees. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Daley et al. (2022/0153029).
Regarding claim 1, Daley teaches a system for printing on a random-height container, the printing system comprising:
a frame (note that the frame is being defined as the unshown housing of the printer including all shown components);
a printer (figs. 1, 3, item 304) that is linearly height adjustable relative to the frame (see figs. 1, 3);
a lifter (fig. 4, item 406/434) that lifts the printer as the container to be printed engages the lifter (see fig. 4, note that when the shield is lifted by the print medium, the shield lifts the printer 404); and
a damper (fig. 4, item 436) operatively coupled to the printer and the lifter (see fig. 4), to dampen movement of the printer relative to the frame as the printer is lifted by the lifter (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the lifter includes a roller (fig. 4, item 434).
Regarding claim 4, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the lifter engages the container at an angle of 2 degrees or less (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 1, further comprising a conveyer that conveys the container into a printing region between the printer and the conveyer ([0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 6, further comprising a support (fig. 4, portion of shield 406 on which printhead 404 rests) that maintains the printer lifted away from the conveyer while the container is in the printing region (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 9, wherein the support includes a pair of bars that engage the container (see fig. 5, Note bars flanking printhead 504).
Regarding claim 12, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 10, wherein the bars engage the container outside of a print area on the container (see fig. 5, Note that the bars do not overlap with the printhead nozzles).
Regarding claim 14, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 9, wherein the support includes a roller (fig. 4, item 434) that engages a top surface of the container, while the container is within the printing region (see figs. 1-5, Note that if the entire area below the shown device is considered to be “the printing region” the roller engages the top surface in the printing region).
Regarding claim 15, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 1, further comprising a low-friction coupling between the printer and the frame (see fig. 4, Note that there is no friction when the printhead couples to the frame and lefts away to the retracted position from the frame).
Regarding claim 18, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 1, further comprising springs (fig. 4, items 436) that engage the printer and the frame, to bias the printer to a default height relative to the frame (see figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 19, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 18, wherein the springs include coil springs (see figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 20, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 19, wherein the coil springs include four coil springs, located at corners of the printer (see fig. 5, Note that there are two shown coil springs and two unshown, and each corresponds to one corner of the printhead 404).
Regarding claim 21, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 1, further comprising a macro height adjuster used to selectively adjust a height of the printer relative to the frame (see fig. 2, Note that while no specific adjustment mechanism is disclosed, one is necessarily present).
Regarding claim 23, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 21, further comprising a lock that locks the printer and the frame together during operation of the macro height adjuster (see figs. 1-5, Note that any number of components can be said to lock the printer to the frame at all times, including during the operation of the macro height adjuster. That is, there are any number of components that physically couple, i.e., lock, the printhead 404 to the larger unshown housing of the device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Daley in view of official notice.
Regarding claim 3, Daley teaches the printing system according to any one of claim 1, wherein the lifter is at a front end of the printer (see fig. 4, note that this could mean anything, but as shown the figure, the lifter can be said to be at all ends of the printer 404), where the print media enters a printing region where printing occurs. Daley does not expressly teach printing on a container but rather printing on a three-dimensional object ([0009] and note that printing on a three-dimensional object is contemplated, and a container is a three-dimensional object). Examiner takes official notice that one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a container as the print medium instead of substrates with differing thicknesses.
Regarding claim 22, Daley teaches the printing system according to claim 21. Daley does not teach wherein the macro height adjuster includes servo motors that adjust height of the printer relative to the frame. Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use servo motors to adjust the height of the printer relative to the frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights